Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rachpal Singh And Others vs Chandigarh Administration on 23 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054544-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:054544-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(107) LPA-610-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 23.04.2024
Rachpal Singh & others
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Chandigarh Administration through its Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh &
others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Shivam Bansal, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate, for respondent-CITCO.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-1503-LPA-2024
1. Application for condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the
present appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the
application, duly supported by affidavit of appellant No.2, same is
allowed. Delay of 46 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-610-2024
3. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
26.02.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-21833-2016 titled
Sh. Rachpal Singh & others Vs. Chandigarh Administration & others,
whereby the Learned Single Judge declined the benefit of extension in
service after the age of 58 years.
4. The principle which was kept in mind by the Learned Single
Judge was that the employer had decided not to give extension in service
to its employees beyond the age of 58 years and relieved the employees on
10.10.2016 after taking a decision on 06.07.2016 (Annexure P-28).
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054544-DB
LPA-610-2024 (O&M)
Learned Single Judge kept the basic principle in mind that the financial
burden of CITCO would come to Rs.48 crores per annum for keeping the
employees on board since the salary burden of the 36 relieved employees
was Rs.18,62,861/- per month approximately. Resultantly, while noticing
that in various judgments it had been held that grant of extension in service
after the date of retirement is not a right but only a concession and could
be withdrawn at any time, the writ petition was dismissed.
5. The appellants chose to file appeal against the same bearing
LPA-1114-2019 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.05.2019
(Annexure A-4) with the following liberty:
"At the outset, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants made a request to permit withdrawal of the appeal with
liberty to file a review application since the issue of payment of
wages for the period, though was pressed, but somehow has
escaped attention of the learned Single Judge.
Prayer made is allowed.
Appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty prayed
for.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
28.05.2019"
6. It is thus apparent that on merits the appellants had already
given up their claim regarding this issue. The review petition was
thereafter dismissed bearing RA-CW-297-2019 on 01.12.2023 wherein the
Learned Single Judge held that no case is made out to give salary on
account of the fact that there was an interim order on 21.10.2016 in favour
of the writ petitioners and they had only been reinstated on 25.09.2017. It
was noticed that since the writ petition had been dismissed and no case
was made out to give the applicants the salary for the said period.
7. Counsel for the appellants has thus submitted that for the
period the appellants were not allowed to join, they should be paid the
salary and the Learned Single Judge has declined the said benefit wrongly.
8. It is, however, not disputed that after the reinstatement on
25.09.2017, the employees continued till they attained the age of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054544-DB
LPA-610-2024 (O&M)
superannuation and thus, had been only paid for the period they actually
worked. The Learned Single Judge was thus right in holding that for the
period they did not work and having been reinstated due to the various
interim orders being passed on having been earlier relieved, the benefit of
payment of salary had rightly not been granted on the principle of 'No
Work- No Pay'. Accordingly, no fault can be found in the view taken by
the Learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances.
9. As noticed CITCO is under immense financial strain and
therefore, the view which has been taken by the Learned Single Judge is a
plausible view and is not liable to be interfered with as there is no illegality
or irregularity and the same is based on settled principle that the employer
could not be forced to pay and shell out for the period of over a year
without having the benefit of the work force.
10. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the well
reasoned order of the Learned Single Judge since the main appeal itself
had not been pressed on merits on an earlier occasion. Accordingly, in
view of the above discussion, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. All
pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
23.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
